Paul Price: What are the Substantive Critiques of Genetic Entropy?

Sorry!

No, I think you are misinterpreting neutral theory. I do have reservations though and am planning to post a couple of questions hoping to clear that up. As Dr Swamidass is suggesting we are off topic maybe you can pick up on that thread which may be a few days in appearing.

My suspicion is that no answer is forthcoming from Sanford because he hopes his idea will be taken seriously by legitimate scientists, who will then be forced by logic to conclude that life could not have existed for more than a few thousand years. If so, he likely realizes his work will rightly be dismissed out of hand if he states his beliefs about the age of the earth up front.

Of course, his work is dismissed anyway, for other reasons that are by now very apparent.

2 Likes

Yes, he is misunderstanding neutral theory, quite badly.

5 Likes

Do you think neutral theory rejects the existence of selection? If so you’re badly misinformed.

3 Likes

Earlier, you were chiding us for supposedly ignoring conclusions from a peer reviewed paper, were you not?

You would first need to demonstrate that they are faulty, and also demonstrate that what you have are the words of God.

Actually, they aren’t. If constants and laws were different in the past then it should show up in observations of distant stars and in the rocks on Earth. We don’t assume constants and laws were the same in the past, we conclude they were the same in the past because of the evidence.

2 Likes

No I don’t, but since we know (again, I’m forced to become a broken record on this) that the vast majority of mutations large enough to be selectable are deleterious, the role of selection must be mostly relegated to the process of weeding out the worst of the deleterious mutants. That means it has little to do with the alleged beneficial mutations, most of which would have to be effectively neutral (like Dr Schaffner has implied).

13 posts were split to a new topic: Stopwatches and Time

I would suggest reading the entirety of this article:

1 Like

You’re not paying attention. I can’t help you figure out what’s been stated, or what the literature states, which I have now extensively quoted for you.

Would you agree that neutral drift exists alongside positive and negative selection?

Yep, I would. But as I’ve explained numerous times, using the word “neutral” with no qualifier is inherently misleading people, over and over. The word neutral implies there is no fitness impact, but the experts manifestly do not mean that when they are using that term.

Then you would need to show us how you determine the impact a mutation has on fitness. Ultimately, you are saying that these mutations lower fitness to the point of the species being unable to reproduce and survive. Those sound like very deleterious mutations, don’t they? Those don’t sound like nearly neutral mutations.

2 Likes

But that’s a false claim, as there was a very obvious qualifier.

1 Like

@PDPrice

Doesn’t the software simulation discussed in the thread (linked to below) go a long way to showing that even random improvements in the architecture of a “mind” can lead to positive results?

Go to the thread link below to see image chain!

image

This is the difference between making a large change all at once, versus very gradually in tiny increments. Very much the frog-in-the-boiling-water scenario.

Evidence demonstrates otherwise.

The effect isn’t linear.

3 Likes

Please show your calculations. Different alleles have different magnitudes of effects on fitness. Do you not know this?

The problem is you are unable to explain why the frog would die from hyperthermia if we gradually increased the water to boiling, but not of hypothermia if we gradually lower it to freezing, which is what your scenario amounts to.

Another reason that your entire argument here is a string of bad jokes.

1 Like

I for one am enjoying the constant flow of poorly thought out inappropriate analogies that pass for “scientific” evidence in YEC-land. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like